Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Council tax on Granny Flat


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5294 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We have an annex that was built over our garage for my mother in law. It was built in 1988 and went through all the necessary planning and building regs. Although it has its own front door, the council made us put in a connecting door to our house because there was only planning permission for one dwelling on the plot. It is therefore counted as rooms in our house. In 1991 the house was assessed for council tax in band F.

Mother-in-law died and we have rented out the flat for the last few years.

Our present tenant, who has been with us for 2.5 years, has recently been made redundant and so is entitled to housing benefit. The flat has its own kitchen and bathroom.

Because the council willl now have to pay his rent they have decided that the annex should be rated separately and a valuation officer is coming out tomorrow to look at it.

My view is that the annex was there before 1991, the council knew about it and when the valuation office valued it, they will have included its value. If not then it was pretty shoddy work on their part.

Is there a time limit on how far they can go back, like there is for planning applications?

Has anyone else had a similar situation that might help me.

M

Edited by eagleforms
typos and more info added.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If planning permission was only granted if it was joined to the main house by a connecting door (which I assume is still there) then you have adhered to the councils rules. I would presume that it would be still classed as a single dwelling in which you rent out part of your house to a third party (lodger)

 

If the officer decides it is a seperate dwelling then surely they should not of granted planning permission.

 

I find it hard to believe that they can move the goal posts to suit themselves after 18 years:(

 

 

Sorry I cannot be of help to you but I am interested in what the Council decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Wino

The valuation office duly turned up yesterday and said that because the annex had cooking facilities and a bathroom, it was a self contained unit and would be subject to its own council tax band.

It amazes me that the council, who put the valuation office on to me, in the form of their planning department insisted that a communicating door was made between the annex and the house, because there is only permission for one dwelling to be on the plot, now want to say that the annex is separate accommodation. The inland revenue also allow the rent to be tax free because it is classed as rooms in our house.

It would appear that the rules can be bent when there is a sniff of some more money to be made out of the public. They will, however, have shot themselves in the foot because the tenant has been made redundant and they are paying his housing costs, which will now have to include the council tax.

It leaves me wonder that if I put a little cooker in my main bedroom, that has an ensuite bathroom, whether this would also be classed as a self contained unit? Same difference?

M

Edited by eagleforms
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is crazy. I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago.:p

 

 

Now a query for you. If you only had planning permission for one dwelling and you have two which one do you think the council will make you knock down?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question Wino. Interestingly enough, if the annex had been put up without planning permission, it would have been there long enough not to be knocked down. After 10 years the council can't do anything about it. Pity council tax, from the same council, doesn't work that way.

M

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...